Allocating a Scarce Riverbank Embankment Budget
A district has a fixed embankment-repair budget of Tk 12 crore for the coming monsoon. Engineers identify three options. Site A protects 9,000 people and 1,200 hectares of cropland but costs Tk 9 crore. Site B protects 4,000 people and 600 hectares but costs Tk 3 crore. Site C protects 2,500 people but includes a hospital, two schools, and the only road link to a char community, at a cost of Tk 4 crore. Historical data show Site A has flooded twice in 20 years, Site B four times, and Site C once, but Site C's population is the most isolated and has the least ability to evacuate. The budget cannot fund all three. The local member of parliament is pressing for Site A because it serves the largest electorate.
1. Compare the three options using at least two distinct decision criteria, and explain where the criteria disagree.
Read the worked answer
Criterion one: cost per person protected. Site A is Tk 10,000 per person (9 crore / 9,000). Site B is Tk 7,500 per person (3 crore / 4,000). Site C is Tk 16,000 per person (4 crore / 2,500). On this criterion B is most efficient, then A, then C.
Criterion two: expected harm avoided. Weighting flood frequency and severity, Site B has the highest historical exposure (four floods in 20 years) and therefore the greatest expected reduction in damage per taka. Site A has lower frequency. Site C has low frequency but high consequence, because the hospital, schools, and sole road link create losses that are not captured by headcount.
Criterion three: equity and vulnerability. Site C protects the most isolated population with the least evacuation capacity, and its infrastructure serves people beyond the 2,500 residents. On an equity-weighted view, C rises sharply.
The criteria disagree because headcount efficiency favors B, expected-damage favors B, and vulnerability favors C. Site A is dominated: it is neither the most efficient nor the most protective of the vulnerable, and its political appeal rests on electorate size rather than need.
2. Recommend an allocation and defend it against the charge that you are ignoring the largest population.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: fund B (Tk 3 crore) and C (Tk 4 crore), leaving Tk 5 crore unspent or held as a contingency reserve for emergency repairs during the monsoon. This protects 6,500 people, secures critical infrastructure, and retains flexibility for in-season failure, which is realistic given construction risk.
Defense against the political charge: the purpose of the budget is risk reduction, not representation. Site A consumes 75 percent of the budget to protect 9,000 people at a high unit cost, while leaving the hospital and the isolated char community exposed and exhausting the reserve. If a breach occurs elsewhere mid-monsoon, there would be no funds to respond.
The defensible principle is to maximize avoided harm per taka subject to a vulnerability floor: no community with critical infrastructure and low evacuation capacity should be left unprotected when a cost-effective alternative exists. Site A can be phased into next year's budget with a cost-reduction review, since its unit cost suggests design inefficiency. The MP should be given the unit-cost table and the contingency rationale in writing, so the decision is transparent rather than personal.